It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You hard-shelled materialists were all balanced on the very edge of belief — of belief in almost anything.
“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything”.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: eisegesis
My argument is that those who claim to have faith don't, while those who claim to have no faith do. A commitment of faith towards a doctrine is far less substantial, less risky, and less honourable, than a commitment of faith towards a person or a thing.
A materialist believes in things.
God is not a thing that can be believed - God is not a thing. There is no one (no thing) that can choose - only when 'things' have been transcended will God be revealed.
This is a rather hollow blanket statement -- without understanding which evidentary systems are in play here, any conclusions or statements about faith are too broad to have any real basis. Some children, for instance, have faith that there's a Santa Claus while others (operating on a different set of cultural norms and personal understanding of the world) do not. And while you are speaking of a Christian-majority American culture, what you say does not necessarily hold true elsewhere. In North Korea, belief in science is far riskier than a belief in Kim Jong-Un or his father Kim Jong-Il.
Agnosticism is not a shrug. Agnosticism is the difference between a scientist who stubbornly holds to old ideas because they believed in them verses another scientist, who open to new realities discovers that the reason we thought what we observed happening is wrong and opens up whole new discoveries.
We may observe that copper conducts electricity, but unless we know all of what electricity is, and all of what copper is, all we have is an observation. We have a piece of the puzzle, but that's it. Without knowing those other two things, we have something we observe, but without knowing the whole of both things involved in the observation we don't know anything.
originally posted by: vjr1113
just right off the bat, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. there's a difference between faith and belief.
you can believe in anything to some degree but expect to be asked for evidence if you want to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.
before modern science, the religious anchored their arguments in faith. a personal revelation or "feeling". they can't really get away from that anymore, now they argue human ignorance to create a "reasonable" doubt.